Search form

You are here

So, before I go to bed tonight I thought I'd drop this discussion piece:

While there are things I like in DDN that keep giving me hope, I absolutely despise the current mechanics. This was most recently brought to my attention in Plaguescarred's recent A Dark and Stormy Knight game last Thursday.

Tonight, just now, I was thinking about it and what struck me is how the people I was playing with remembered my success, when I crit on the Hobgoblin leader and one of his soldiers (capped the soldier flat out and severely wounded the Leader). What I remember is how often I was whiffing. DDN, alledgedly due to the Bounded Accuracy, does not allow me to take options to mitigate bad die rolls and I hate it. This is also the source of my frustration with the current skill system as I was discussing (sort of) with Cyber-Dave earlier in a thread on that subject. I tried that with the Cortex system in the Serenity RPG and while I like the world, I hate the game.

The fact is random super successes (Nat 20 criticals that change the course of a battle) do not make for fun or engaging game play for me, consistent regular performance does. To me, DDN in its current mechanical incarnation resembles a game of fumble fingered idiots hoping for luck (and the kindness of the DM) to carry them through not skill, courage and a strong sword arm.

So, before I go to bed tonight I thought I'd drop this discussion piece:

While there are things I like in DDN that keep giving me hope, I absolutely despise the current mechanics. This was most recently brought to my attention in Plaguescarred's recent A Dark and Stormy Knight game last Thursday.

Tonight, just now, I was thinking about it and what struck me is how the people I was playing with remembered my success, when I crit on the Hobgoblin leader and one of his soldiers (capped the soldier flat out and severely wounded the Leader). What I remember is how often I was whiffing. DDN, alledgedly due to the Bounded Accuracy, does not allow me to take options to mitigate bad die rolls and I hate it. This is also the source of my frustration with the current skill system as I was discussing (sort of) with Cyber-Dave earlier in a thread on that subject. I tried that with the Cortex system in the Serenity RPG and while I like the world, I hate the game.

The fact is random super successes (Nat 20 criticals that change the course of a battle) do not make for fun or engaging game play for me, consistent regular performance does. To me, DDN in its current mechanical incarnation resembles a game of fumble fingered idiots hoping for luck (and the kindness of the DM) to carry them through not skill, courage and a strong sword arm.

I played for 10 hours on saturday...the players hit more often than they missed. The monsters rarely managed to save. The players hit more often than the monsters. Are you sure you weren't just having an off day with the roll's.

Interestingly enough we were discussing this on RPGTO I think about a minute after you logged off. Nothing bad, though.

Plague having that creature's stats up and while I was looking through the bestiary it came down to the fact that anyone who had +4 to attacks needed to roll a 10 to hit and anyone with +5 needed 9 to hit. Now in my opinion anything that requires a roll between 9 and 11 to hit their AC is "reasonable". I know it sucks to chain miss all night (hell, I had chain misses for three sessions of 4E before realising I could take feats to improve accuracy), but that's just down to bad rolls. Like how our wizard (I forget their name, sorryyyy!) had a 50% hit rate and every time he hit, he'd only roll 1 damage.

I don't mind the bounded accuracy because having the choice to increase accuracy through feats is not a choice. It only gives the illusion of choice, because anyone sensible or knowledgeable will take them to increase accuracy to the point that it becomes almost mandatory.

Wait. Are you guys using a computer program to generate dice rolls, or are you using real dice?

The computer randomosity isnt truly random.

In my experience, the computer seems to lock into tendencies. Eventually it evens out, but some of these locks last a long time. It is sort of like a “streak of luck”, good or bad. But once you are in one, it is predictable you will remain in it for some time.

It seems one way to get out is to keep rolling blanks until you start rolling higher numbers, then start rolling for real from then on. But at this point, you may well be entering a streak of good luck. And when manipulating the system like that, it seems close to cheating.

honestly, I think feats that increased accuracy was what I hated most about feats. I'm not sure why you want to play a game that rolls dice if you want the result pre-determined. It was the weird thing I didn't get about 4e (maybe it was true in 3e I didn't play it enough) what was the point in playing a game with d20 if no one ever made a roll they could fail.

Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

So, before I go to bed tonight I thought I'd drop this discussion piece:

While there are things I like in DDN that keep giving me hope, I absolutely despise the current mechanics. This was most recently brought to my attention in Plaguescarred's recent A Dark and Stormy Knight game last Thursday.

Tonight, just now, I was thinking about it and what struck me is how the people I was playing with remembered my success, when I crit on the Hobgoblin leader and one of his soldiers (capped the soldier flat out and severely wounded the Leader). What I remember is how often I was whiffing. DDN, alledgedly due to the Bounded Accuracy, does not allow me to take options to mitigate bad die rolls and I hate it. This is also the source of my frustration with the current skill system as I was discussing (sort of) with Cyber-Dave earlier in a thread on that subject. I tried that with the Cortex system in the Serenity RPG and while I like the world, I hate the game.

The fact is random super successes (Nat 20 criticals that change the course of a battle) do not make for fun or engaging game play for me, consistent regular performance does. To me, DDN in its current mechanical incarnation resembles a game of fumble fingered idiots hoping for luck (and the kindness of the DM) to carry them through not skill, courage and a strong sword arm.

I have a friend who LOVES making accurate characters-- most recently a Hengeyokai Hunter(type of Ranger) marksman in 4E. That's the concept-- a character with a (pretty literal) eagle eye who raarely misses at long range. This concept is hard to achieve in the rules with Next's Bounded Accuracy. Sure, he could ttake a high dexterity and roleplay being really accurate... but playing this type of character is not really possible in the game part of Next, IMO

I actually have been beefing up the monsters a bit, just to make them more of a challenge for my group.

I feel for you though; it sounds like you were having a really bad session. All I can suggest is that you stick with it; I think you'll enjoy the game overall. Don't let one (or two) bad experiences ruin the game for you.

The biggest issue that rises from character build options that increase accuracy is they're so powerful that they quickly become the only thing people consider and everyone who doesn't starts to be considered "behind".

I much prefer the idea that bonuses are relatively small and not derrived from your specific feat options (class options should not mix with multiclassing quite so much either) to keep folks focused on concept. Obviously people will min/max but this particular option tends to overshadow things faster than a lot of other things.

I actually have been beefing up the monsters a bit, just to make them more of a challenge for my group.

I feel for you though; it sounds like you were having a really bad session. All I can suggest is that you stick with it; I think you'll enjoy the game overall. Don't let one (or two) bad experiences ruin the game for you.

Yeah - with the monster defenses as they are, I'm not sure how anyone misses them. So either they were houseruled (in which case you can't really blame the system - even if I personally think the monster defenses do need to go up) or you just had really really bad luck.

(And we all do - even with bad dice. I can recall an Encounters session a couple of seasons back where literally every single NPC/creature missed on every single attack for two entire rounds. Something like fourteen or fifteen attacks without a single roll over a 6.

IF it were once, I'd buy that but I had the exact same problem when Jaganath ran Caves of Chaos if you'll recall Plague. While the first encounter had the AC 15 and 18 Guards and Guard Captain, I couldn't hit Kobolds either.

Regarding 9-11 as being reasonable to hit numbers I'll agree on that, if I giving up 4 levels (I try to have my accuracy good enough that that is what I need to hit a L+4 Soldier). I build in 4th to hit at-level foes on a 6 minimum (barring certain penalties like an angelic aura, trog stench or concealment). I think I read somewhere that most people prefer to succeed 75% of the time and that's certainly true in my case (I have gone down to 65% if I have ways to modify that [my half-orc slayer was frequently in situations where he needed to roll a 2+ to hit, still occaisonaly rolled that 1 and angered me but in combat there has to be some risk of failure I guess]).

With all the talk of having dials in the game, I'd like to see one for tweaking the average accuracy. It should be fairly simple to just give everyone get a fixed bonus/penalty to get the average hit% to the desired spot.

I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.

With all the talk of having dials in the game, I'd like to see one for tweaking the average accuracy. It should be fairly simple to just give everyone get a fixed bonus/penalty to get the average hit% to the desired spot.

One obvious dial is whether or not you give the players items with accuracy bonuses.

It occurs to me rereading this that people seem fixated on feat based accuracy bonuses and forget that in 4th Ed (at least) I had other dials and switches to use (although I did always take expertise). Point buy could give me the same stat range as die rolling (DDN's current point buy does not). I could choose a +3 proficiency to hit bonus weapon as opposed to a +2 (or none for improvised). Most of my prefered characters had an inherent +1 to hit with their normal attack modes (Fighter (Slayer, Knight), Scouts, Rogues) or targeted NADs (Hexblades) and many had powers such as Beserker's Charge, Poised Assault, and all had the charge option for a +1.

It occurs to me rereading this that people seem fixated on feat based accuracy bonuses and forget that in 4th Ed (at least) I had other dials and switches to use (although I did always take expertise). Point buy could give me the same stat range as die rolling (DDN's current point buy does not). I could choose a +3 proficiency to hit bonus weapon as opposed to a +2 (or none for improvised). Most of my prefered characters had an inherent +1 to hit with their normal attack modes (Fighter (Slayer, Knight), Scouts, Rogues) or targeted NADs (Hexblades) and many had powers such as Beserker's Charge, Poised Assault, and all had the charge option for a +1.

Having a class that is innately more accurate is fine with me as it a feature of the class and is balanced against everything else the class has to offer. Having +x to hit mixed in with other choices I dislike because other choices end up being inferior in most cases. Feats just stand out more because the large number of feats that are not +x that you don't get to take.

I'm actually particularly happy that they got rid of the +2/+3 weapon proficiency and hope that it doesn't return as part of the basic or standard rules.

Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

As others have mentioned, the problem with accuracy increasing options is they blow all other options out of the water and become mandatory. A class option to increase accuracy would have to sacrifice a lot in the exchange if you didn't want it to become the de-facto choice.

It occurs to me rereading this that people seem fixated on feat based accuracy bonuses and forget that in 4th Ed (at least) I had other dials and switches to use (although I did always take expertise). Point buy could give me the same stat range as die rolling (DDN's current point buy does not). I could choose a +3 proficiency to hit bonus weapon as opposed to a +2 (or none for improvised). Most of my prefered characters had an inherent +1 to hit with their normal attack modes (Fighter (Slayer, Knight), Scouts, Rogues) or targeted NADs (Hexblades) and many had powers such as Beserker's Charge, Poised Assault, and all had the charge option for a +1.

Maybe higher-than-average accuracy could be part of the Ranger's schtick? I think it fits thematically at least, with a sort of marksman/hunter, "split the arrow in the center of the bullseye" vibe. The character who can win any archery contest or pin a fly to the wall with a dagger is a common fantasy and adventure trope. Obviously it would take more than the "+X to hit" to define a class archetype.

What I remember is how often I was whiffing. DDN, alledgedly due to the Bounded Accuracy, does not allow me to take options to mitigate bad die rolls and I hate it.

BA is not the cause of this.

Also, +1 on accuracy +1 being an illusion of choice.

How is the current implementation of BA not the cause of my being incapable of making relevent choices concerning my PC's accuracy.

Also, not understanding your final statement, is there an extra +1 in there?

BA does not limit PCs.

I was +1ing the post saying that a +1 to accuracy is an illusion of choice, and trying to be clever about it.

The bottom line is that accuracy boosters are nearly impossible to balance. That's what's driving their removal, not the BA concept. BA lets the PCs increase in accuracy - it just removes the assumption that PCs will increase in accuracy, on the part of the DM side of the system. DCs, monster AC and attacks, that sort of thing. It's a subtle point, but it is important.

I find that 50% accuracy is not much fun, (as a PC at least; the DM at least has multiple characters to control). If I have to wait five or ten minutes to get a turn, and all I want to do is hit something, and then there's an even chance that nothing will happen whatsoever... it feels as though I have no control over anything. And of course, 50% per round means there's a 1 in 4 chance that nothing will happen over two rounds, and a 1 in 8 chance that an entire three-round combat could pass without any of my attacks landing. Why was I even pretending to participate?

If they could work out something like the old console RPGs, where some classes would have higher accuracy but reduced damage, then that feels like a real choice at the character level. If fighters had 60% accuracy and did 2d6 + 7 damage, while rogues had 80% accuracy for 1d8 + 5 damage, then that would be more interesting.

I find that 50% accuracy is not much fun, (as a PC at least; the DM at least has multiple characters to control). If I have to wait five or ten minutes to get a turn, and all I want to do is hit something, and then there's an even chance that nothing will happen whatsoever... it feels as though I have no control over anything. And of course, 50% per round means there's a 1 in 4 chance that nothing will happen over two rounds, and a 1 in 8 chance that an entire three-round combat could pass without any of my attacks landing. Why was I even pretending to participate?

If they could work out something like the old console RPGs, where some classes would have higher accuracy but reduced damage, then that feels like a real choice at the character level. If fighters had 60% accuracy and did 2d6 + 7 damage, while rogues had 80% accuracy for 1d8 + 5 damage, then that would be more interesting.

Problem with this argument is that it quickly escalates. 60% is no fun 70% is no fun. Rolling lower then average damage is no fun. It's bad game design where your only meaningful choice each round is a single attack.

I'm pretty fond of the mechanic found in another game: When you miss, you still deal (some) damage. Not as much damage as a hit, and you don't get any of the "riders" that come along with your hit (forced movement, ongoing damage, etc) so hitting is still the desired course, but you will at least deal damage that is scaled to your character (hard hitting characters dealing more damage on a miss than not hard-hitting).

This is such a wonderful rule, and speeds battle enough without taking away the fun of hitting (it's not an auto hit) that I have seriously considered including this in my 4e games, even.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

honestly, I think feats that increased accuracy was what I hated most about feats. I'm not sure why you want to play a game that rolls dice if you want the result pre-determined. It was the weird thing I didn't get about 4e (maybe it was true in 3e I didn't play it enough) what was the point in playing a game with d20 if no one ever made a roll they could fail.

It's not really about having results predetermined. It's about not feeling like your success hinges entirely on luck, instead of how good your character is at doing something.

One of the reasons I dislike the d20. That's a damned swingy success die.

@j_s: I'm with you on this. I don't need 4e's level of accuracy increasing options, but I'd like Next to start at a slightly more accurate rate than where it is, and have some room to improve it through character options. I'd dig a 65% accuracy rate to start, with the abillity to go up to 75% or so. Any higher than that without circumstantial bonuses, party cooperation, etc, and I don't really dig it.

Problem with this argument is that it quickly escalates. 60% is no fun 70% is no fun. Rolling lower then average damage is no fun. It's bad game design where your only meaningful choice each round is a single attack.

I have played many entertaining games in the past where accuracy was near 100% on both sides, and where damage was more consistent as well. As long as there is choice in which maneuver to use in a given instance, or which of many targets to strike, we don't need to add two heavily randomized components on top of the game (where the "game" is defined as the series of meaningful choices).

honestly, I think feats that increased accuracy was what I hated most about feats. I'm not sure why you want to play a game that rolls dice if you want the result pre-determined. It was the weird thing I didn't get about 4e (maybe it was true in 3e I didn't play it enough) what was the point in playing a game with d20 if no one ever made a roll they could fail.

It's not really about having results predetermined. It's about not feeling like your success hinges entirely on luck, instead of how good your character is at doing something.

One of the reasons I dislike the d20. That's a damned swingy success die.

@j_s: I'm with you on this. I don't need 4e's level of accuracy increasing options, but I'd like Next to start at a slightly more accurate rate than where it is, and have some room to improve it through character options. I'd dig a 65% accuracy rate to start, with the abillity to go up to 75% or so. Any higher than that without circumstantial bonuses, party cooperation, etc, and I don't really dig it.

Yep, so if I had +1 more to hit, I would have been at my happy space as far as percentages go and I would have actually hit more often (at least twice more IIRC) during the actual session, which would have made me feel like I was pulling my weight.

So with their on average +6 bonus to hit, at least 2 rocking the +7, those numbers are very different. Any additional +1s would have made pretty much every monster in the book a joke as far as AC was concerned. seriously a +8 to hit makes most monsters a 3+ to hit. I have no problem with higher level guys hitting more often but making it viable at level 1 to have near the level 7 bonus makes whatever option you could take to get that bonus hardly an option. If you in any way build your character to performance that is a gold rated option at low level...With retraining it is basically a non option. It literally jumps your fighting capability up by 5 or 6 levels. Everyone would take that at first level, no mater what, then at 6th retrain it to something else, or just keep it and be able to have the hardest to hit creaters on 50% chance to hit with it only getting easier as time goes on. By level 10 without any other bonuses besides stat and class bonus the hardest to hit enemies are on a 10+ to hit 9+ if you have a 20 in your attack stat (easily managed by level 10). If you were to add a random +1 bonus on there by choice hitting the hardest to hit enemies would be an 8+ affair making it 65% chance to hit. This doesn't even begin to aproach the idea of adding magic weapons. Which if you are level 20 and have a magic weapon pretty much say goodbye to missing all together.

Yeah you were level 1 and you missed a bunch...that is kinda the point. You are level 1. Was everyone else hitting far more often than you all day long? Were bad dice rolls a factor? Sometimes you have an off night with the dice. Sometimes level is actualy a factor of how often you can hit.